User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2014/January

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

EB1911 no-prescript
I am currently running a script to alter some parameters used by EB1911 and related templates. One of the parameters I am looking at is no-prescript. This can be replaced by using Cite EB1911 instead of  which has some benefits in which hidden maintenance categories the article gets placed.

I am not sure that you are aware that for many of the templates that access wikisource encyclopaedia type books there are three types, all with similar formats, for attribution; for citation; and a "banner box" for external links (eg:   ;   ; and   ).

However the main reason for this posting message to ask you to try to remember an edit you made over 2 1/2 years ago in March 2011, and why you added "no-prescript=1" to the template1911, when there is still EB1911 text in the Wikipedia article (see here). To meet the attribution criteria laid out in the plagiarism guideline, I think it best if the no-prescript parameter is removed and the attribution prescript is restored. Do you have any thought on this? -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember the circumstance of the particular edit. In general, where there is more than one source, and other text is inserted into the paragraphs, I would generally remove it, especially when refs are inline and attributable (and linked to the source) as per the editing policy. Re plagiarism, I am unaware of anyone claiming the the text as their own, especially if quoting a source. Re the ugliness of those other templates that do not sit inline, text should be amended to inline refs, and we should be maintaining a reference style more with common academic guidance, not the malformed set of statements, wherever possible, so no I cannot agree that I prefer the references in forms of sentences. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The plagiarism guideline is the result of a compromise between those who think that no text should be copied from a PD source and those that think it is acceptable. The result of the compromise is that PD source can be used, but it must be clearly marked as a copy. The usual way of doing this (as described in the plagiarism guideline) is to include attribution to the source in the References section, and ideally short inline citation that link to that source in the references section. The point not that "anyone [is] claiming the the text as their own", but by omission of clear attribution it may be seen as plagiarism by Wikpedia editors -- just as it would in a student's paper.


 * On another issue entirely you recently made an edit to John Selwyn (bishop) where you added a link to an article on Wikisource. It is being discussed at the moment whether to removed unarmed parameters as an option in Cite DNB etc (it will make the code cleaner it is self documenting and will bring the template closer to the behaviour of cite encyclopedia), so please use the named parameter "wstitle=" instead of an unamed parameter when using the DNB and DNBSupp templates. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually do use named, rather than positional parameters; it was an oversight when doing four things at once with things here, WS, Wikidata and Commons. That said anyone can write whatever bot they want to go and fix these things, and not fret about such minuscule issues. Some people have a distorted understanding of plagiarism; the text is attributed, and went through the history as a paste, beyond that I am not going to pander to the ridiculous. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Balkansky syr
Hi Billinghurst, I see you have removed a link to a site with reason "commercial link". www.sirene.cz is 100% informational site, it doesn't promote any product and it doesn't have links to other commercial sites. I have collected there very comprehensive information about this cheese, that's all. I plan to move this info to Wikipedia anyway.

Cheers!

Tuzemak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the link is promotional. It is not an authoritative source, and provides no clearly citable information, nor evidence from where the information is sourced. Please read the information that has been provided to you. Can you declare that you have no association with the site, and no vested interest in promoting the site? If you add external links that do not align with our policies, then the links will be removed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Form the site is visible that it doesn't promote or sell anything. You're right about the sources, I have collected the info from many sources, but I haven't list of them. OK, I agree with you. - Tuzemak (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balk%C3%A1nsk%C3%BD_s%C3%BDr I refer again to sirene.cz for recipes. Is that wrong? All the info in this site is well known for most of the Bulgarians. How to cite well-known facts? Thanks - Tuzemak (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We are an encyclopaedia, why would we want to refer to a site for recipes, and why just that site? Imagine how long a list of sites we could have that could create about anything and spoil an article.  Have a look at External links or an equivalent page in your home language.  Re citing facts, there are usually credible sources, and resources available, see Citing sources. Often a process to get a cite listed especially where it has been removed is by adding it to the talk page, have the conversation there about it.  Further guidance about that approach is available at Conflict of interest.  (There should be language equivalents at your wiki, and these pages will have interwikis linking to them if they are known) — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, many Wiki pages about cheeses have recipe section. OK, I can create a separate wiki page for each recipe and link them. Probably this should be the correct approach, but I don't want to waste time for this two times.
 * Unfortunately there's no official Bulgarian site, which promotes our cheese, to cite. It's funny but it looks like my site is the most official informational site about this traditional Bulgarian product. - Tuzemak (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All this stuff is covered in the pages, and maybe I can just use this redirect links
 * WP:NOTRECIPE
 * WP:FANSITE
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear. Thanks. - Tuzemak (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a link pointing to a test of variants of this kind of cheese in the Czech Republic, published by one of the major Czech TV channels. It should be independent and not commercial. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

COI for libraries covered under GLAM?
Torlib (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Billinghurst. I got your message about a potential COI, which I thought would be covered under the GLAM exception, since I work for a public library that digitises rare materials that support and expand Wikipedia article, particularly in the domain of Canadian history.

I was not aware that I was doing anything wrong! If there is a particular item you find problematic, please let me know. I am just starting to contribute to this project, so your feedback is very valuable to me.

As a result of your recommendation, I did expand my About page.

Thanks, Billinghurst, and have a good 2014.

Torlib (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain
Would you be so kind to explain to me in more detail what you meant with the explanation for this revert. I didn't get it. I'll watch this page. Debresser (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The template links to Wikisource, so it is a url; it can be relevant if cited in article for an access date. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)